Sunday, February 22, 2009

Hey, how come whenever the political class has a girly tantrum about extremism, it's never about the guys who take a nuanced position on mass murder?

Of course, there is something else. As Stan points out, it's not just that the political establishment is losing the battle of ideas, it's that they're not even fighting there. Look at The Dave: he's reaching out to C2 married couples in the East Midlands, gays who work in the service industries and Blacks who wear hats and don't watch 'The X-Factor', but in amongst all these targeted messages and niche marketing, where's the substance?

It is grossly unfair that your wealth dictates the standard of education you can give your children. Anyone who cannot afford to go private should not have to tolerate an under-funded state educational system that seemingly puts more emphasis on sex education and media studies than the sciences or history.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not schools are really under-funded after twelve years of labour spending like a Premiership footballer with a day to live, how come schools in the Third World manage to teach real subjects then? Just how much extra would it cost to teach kids about the Bill of Rights instead of making videos of each other?

Of course, this does raise a question: in so far as this decision means that liberals are claiming a woman submitted a false claim of harassment, does that mean they hate women, or is that just where rightists question the authenticity of these claims?

On the other hand... how can I put this? This case doesn't exactly rebut the stereotype of the special people as hysterical whiners. Besides, if it's not about the money, how come they never turn it down?

Talking specifically of those who defend their human right not to allow anyone to disagree with them, but with wider implications for conservatism in general:

As I've said re the so-called "global consensus" of the UN, if you mix half-a-pint of vanilla ice cream with half-a-pint of dog feces the result will taste more like the latter than the former. Likewise, if you split the difference between me and Commissar Barbara Hall, or Ezra and Jennifer Lynch, QC, you're still quite a long ways down the road to tyranny. "Moderation" - of the CTV/Gazette school - is a euphemism for drift, for letting the culture be tugged gently, imperceptibly, remorselessly into darkness

Wait! I hear a whimpering from the corner. Mr Liberal would like to point out that social workers have to act on the advice of whichever totally randomly chosen expert happens to be passing at the particular moment a case comes up.

OK, for the sake of the apologists' stupid argument we'll pretend that social workers pluck out their expert advisers with a pin and a copy of the British Medical Association's members roll. That still leaves open the question of why this sort of fiasco happens so much more often here than in, say, criminal cases.

Well, for a start, real courts allow the accused to mount a proper defence, including the ability to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and call their own expert witnesses in rebuttal. Family courts? Not so much.

Ditto, the fact these courts operate in secret means there's no chance for Professor R E Alscientist to read about the story over his morning weetiflakes and contact the family's solicitor to point out the science is junk. In fact, there's no way to know how many times an alleged expert has had his evidence debunked in previous cases. The secrecy means that social workers can trot out the same witnesses again and again, no matter how dubious they are.

Of course, all of the above assumes that the experts are chosen at random. In reality, not so much. Take this case:

Meanwhile, the story of the mother begging for a lie detector test was reported in the local Press. By chance, the consultant radiologist who had treated Louise's baby girl at the local hospital on the very first day she was brought in, read the article and was appalled.

He remembered the case and the wide divergence of medical opinion, yet had never known that Louise was under suspicion or that she was to have been prosecuted. He was convinced then that the child was suffering from a rare form of cancer of the left kidney, called neuroblastoma, which could have caused the bleeding.

Dr D - as he was called in Mr Justice Gillon's judgment this week - contacted Louise's solicitor and offered to help clear her name.

Yep, the social workers dispassionately acted on the available expert testimony, except for the testimony of the guy who'd first examined the child and who, wouldcha'believe it, could utterly destroy their case. What are the odds, hey?

Also worth noting: it was only because social workers over-played their hand and went for a criminal trial that this doctor became aware the liberals were using junk science to try and steal children. If they'd kept it in the family courts, they'd have gotten away with meddling with the kids.

Bottom line, as ever: it's isn't about bad judgement, it's about a completely warped system that allows unaccountable leftist fanatics to harass the innocent on a whim.

Here's one for the philosophers: just how supa scientific can these liberal social theories be, when they're completely unfalsifiable? Whenever the wheels come off, it just proves we need even more liberalism

Today's 'Decline & Fall Of British Civilisation' story comes from Perthshire:

When father-of-three Peter Drummond discovered that a drug dealer had sold heroin to a member of his family he decided to take matters into his own hands.

He stormed into pusher John Nellies' home and confronted him - before flushing the dealer's heroin down the toilet.

But yesterday it was Drummond - not Nellies - who found himself in court.

And to the despair and anger of his family, Drummond, whose children are all under five years old, was jailed by a sheriff for his actions.

Of course. It gets better:

The court heard that drug addict Lesley Brown then turned up to buy heroin and was told to get out and sworn at by Drummond. She left and reported him to the police.

How's that for a perfect barometer of civilisational decadence? Smackheads phone the police to complain about their dealer getting a hard time.

Not that the bewigged fools see it that way:

But Sheriff Robert McCreadie told Drummond: 'If you were concerned about matters you should contact the police, not enter a house and threaten to kill someone. You can't take matters into your own hands the way you did.'

Yes, he should have told the police..... except both the dealer in question and a junkie customer have no qualms discussing their particular industry in court. I'm getting that the legal system is not really an hindrance to their chosen profession.

Incidentally, this is one reason why I'm sceptical of libertarianism. We keep getting told about the new Golden Age that will descend when drugs are legalised, but in what sense are they illegal right now? Aside from the purely ceremonial sense anyway.

Which is the other thing. Judges like McCreadie aren't concerned about the actual specifics of the law, so much as they are with protecting their right to use it to bully and oppress everyone else. Don't take the law into your own hands, says the sheriff? Whose hands should they be in then? Is the law the product and possession of the citizenry, or the sole property of an unelected elite of lordships?

Hmmmmm..... that rings a bell. Yes, I think we solved that one sometime in the 1640s. We're the citizens, and freaks like McCreadie are the hired help, and it's getting time to fire them all.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

While the vitally important 'Bloody Sunday' enquiry has now reached the £400 million mark and liberal judges invent ever more absurd rights for terrorists, it turns out that there are limits to this whole 'justice' thing after all. And you'll never guess where...

So, for those of you keeping score at home, allowing the state to deport foreign terrorists will bring on the dark night of fascism, but allowing the state to kidnap kids on bogus grounds? Like you've never made a mistake, Mr Perfectey-Conservative.

Incidentally, for those of you tempted to give the judge the benefit of the doubt as a guy making the best of a sticky situation, check out his actual comments:

He said: 'Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right. A family which might well have been capable of being held together, has been split up.

May have been capable of being held together? It was social workers who destroyed the family. This is like claiming that the Titanic may have been capable of surviving, if only it wasn't for the iceberg.

From their perspective, [the parents] have been wrongly accused of physically abusing one of their children, and three of their children have been removed wrongly and permanently from their care.

Yes, it's all a matter of perspective. One man's child abuser is another man's not child abuser. It's all so confusing! After all, who is he to judge?

Meanwhile, I am quite sure that from m'lud's perspective he is in no way a liberal moron who has so thoroughly over indulged on culturally Marxist post-modern drivel that he is incapable of comprehending the basic principles of law, let alone basic justice.

Ditto, what of the social workers? No matter how much Po-Mo drivel you wrap it up in, they were responsible for the abduction of three kids. How about we switch some of the money from appeasing Findus O'Letterbomb over to jailing these low-lifes?

In so far as we're now deep in one of those once-in-a-lifetime economic collapses that only ever happen when Labour are in power, can we at least do without Tory fanboys claiming their paltry low-teens lead is proof of the Godly genius of The Dave?

You could put Sooty up as Leader of the Opposition and he'd be beating Brown. Like NNW points out, The Dave's main talent appears to be missing open goals.

We have an economy that's imploding and a governing party that just plain doesn't give a toss just as long as they can keep the gravy train rolling. Labour shouldn't be worrying about losing the next election, they should be worried about being destroyed as an electoral force forever - and they would be, if only we had someone around to put forward any kind of alternative.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

In so far as the usual suspects are raging about executive compensation, how about a nice dose of sauce for the goose?

And yes, in case you're wondering: in addition to Lottery money and arts grants, our thespians have also managed to intersperse demanding that your taxes go up to save the polar bear from racism with campaigning for a whole set of tax breaks of their own.

Hey, it's hard enough getting them to work at the office, let alone doing extra in their free time.

All of which shows why 'hate speech' laws are rubbish. Here's a guy who's done nothing more than get caught in public talking the way these people talk in private. Is public debate helped or hindered by the chance to see just who's employed by the Foreign Office? Hell, this guy's practically a whistle-blower.

Just in case there's anyone out there who still takes seriously the Government's claim that harassing motorists is all about saving lives, here is enlightenment

Speed kills? Hey, how about hand brake turns? Add in the assault on a police officer and you'd think liberals would be calling for public execution.... unless you had any experience in dealing with the left. Sticking it to motorists is one thing, but promoting dangerous insanity takes precedence over that. Think about it as the anti-matter version of victimhood poker. The most absurd leftist talking point wins. Even so, this was classic:

He has previous convictions for drink-driving and disorderly behaviour, but was given a two-year conditional discharge because he is about to start a new job in Ireland.

Judge Clement Goldstone said the job meant that Kirk would not be able to carry out any community punishment in the UK.

He said: "I cannot impose such a requirement in this case because you are not going to be here to fulfil it and I'm not going to set you up to fail."

Yep, he couldn't be punished because that would inconvenience him. You can't get that kind of service from the NHS. Mind you, it's not like he missed out on much:

He added he would otherwise have handed down a suspended six-month-sentence in a young offenders' institution.

Master MONA Monitor Lurker points out the case to end all cases. Yep, the suspect is 'an amateur footballer and aspiring professional'. Clearly, this is the work of the Full Back Gang.

Needless to say, you need to check with the left's favourite newspaper to fix an 'A' on that 'M'. Irrelevant? Hey, like Lurker says, imagine if it was the other way round: Trevor Phillips would be calling for air strikes, Cameron would upgrade it to nukes and the BBC would spend two hours covering the memorial service in the local Cathedral.

Of course, that does lead to the very best part of all this. As Lurker points out, PC Wilks is no ordinary plod: Nope, she's works in......hate crime!!!!!!!!!!!

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

One thing that really hacks me off is people comparing Mandleson's 'Go To Europe' rant to Tebbit's 'Get On Your Bike' speech. Tebbit was a guy who really had pulled himself up by his bootstraps, talking about his own family's experience. When have any of the repulsive Mandleson clan had to fight for anything? Aside from restaurant reservations, anyway.

The big thing though is what JulieM points out: what part of socialism is it that attempts to justify poverty by citing the fact other people are doing fine? OK, that line of thought may actually mark a real improvement if adopted generally by the left, but here it's just plain weird. Doesn't that kind of kill any leftist criticism of the Thatcher Years? Hey, providing you had money, the 1980s were a true Golden Age. What's the difference exactly?

Still, at least Mandelseon chose to deploy his talents in politics. Can you imagine if he brought the same world view into other fields? Can you imagine him as your GP?

Oh sure, you've got it tough, Mr Whiny 'I've got a brain tumour', but what about Mr Jones at the bottom of your road? He's in perfect health, so stop being so self-obsessed.

Yep, this is where British socialism is at: justifying poverty by citing the example of rich people. It makes you feel nostalgic for Nye Bevan.

Proof positive that the Cameron Party has now abandoned actual policies, in favour of coming up with wacky headlines. On the plus side, this does mean we'll get school vouchers, just as soon as we can get David Beckham to come out for them.

Then again, anything to distract from the fact the Davettes are actually pond scum. For those of you keeping score at home, that means one Tory MP has now managed to cause more provable casualties than global warming. On the other hand, he didn't use any un-PC language, so I guess he's safe for ever.

Ross wonders how conservatives can support the wildcat strikers now after having condemnded Scargill back in the 1980s. My answer would be that Scargill wanted to overturn the results of an election, while the wildcaters are opposing something that was never put to the public in the first place.

When did we have this vote on globalisation, open borders and the whole rest of the tranzi agenda?

I'm sure there are all kinds of cute economic explanations why open borders make everyone richer. Well we've just had a decade full of people with supa-smart theories on how to make money by disregarding all previous norms of business. In the post-crash world common sense is the new black, and there's something just plain wrong with allowing pirate multinationals to leech off our country. As it happens, I think it's technically wrong to say they don't employ British workers - they employ plenty: the workers who build their roads to get to their facilities, the medics who deal with their injured personnel, the police officers who protect the facilities.... nope, they don't mind British workers, they just don't like paying for them. The British taxpayers is effectively subsidising foreign companies, employing foreign workers, which just happen to have a British postcode.

Yes, I'm aware these companies, and workers, will pay some tax. I'm also willing to bet it'll be a lot less than British workers would pay, and that's without factoring in that British workers would spend most of their money in Britain, or the associated welfare costs of keeping the natives on the dole.

Like I said, maybe there's some brilliant reason why allowing multinationals to replace British workers with foreign mercenaries makes perfect sense, but that case has never been made. Instead, we've been stuck with a political class that offers us a choice of a slightly left-of-centre tranzi party or a slightly right-of-centre tranzi party. Millions of voters have been effectively disenfranchised by a political class that refuses to discuss one of the central issues of the age. Apparently, discussing actual issues really is a job the British just won't do.